Abstract
The focus of this study is students’ learning with a Connected Chemistry unit, CC1 (denotes Connected Chemistry, chapter 1), a computer-based environment for learning the topics of gas laws and kinetic molecular theory in chemistry (Levy and Wilensky 2009). An investigation was conducted into high-school students’ learning with Connected Chemistry, based on a conceptual framework that highlights several forms of access to understanding the system (submicro, macro, mathematical, experiential) and bidirectional transitions among these forms, anchored at the common and experienced level, the macro-level. Results show a strong effect size for embedded assessment and a medium effect size regarding pre-post-test questionnaires. Stronger effects are seen for understanding the submicroscopic level and bridging between it and the macroscopic level. More than half the students succeeded in constructing the equations describing the gas laws. Significant shifts were found in students’ epistemologies of models: understanding models as representations rather than replicas of reality and as providing multiple perspectives. Students’ learning is discussed with respect to the conceptual framework and the benefits of assessment of learning using a fine-tuned profile and further directions for research are proposed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
When we use the term mathematical here, we refer to aggregate mathematical descriptions such as equations or graphs.
References
Ardac D, Akaygun S (2004) Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 41:317–337. doi:10.1002/tea.20005
Ardac D, Sezen AH (2002) Effectiveness of computer-based chemistry instruction in enhancing the learning of content and variable control under guided versus unguided conditions. J Sci Educ Technol 11(1):39–48. doi:10.1023/A:1013995314094
Ashkenazi G (2008) Similarity and difference in the behavior of gases: an interactive demonstration. J Chem Educ 85(1):72–77
Ayala CC, Shavelson RJ, Yin Y (2002) Reasoning dimensions underlying science achievement: the case of performance assessment. Educ Assess 8(2):101–121. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0802_02
Ben-Zvi R, Eylon B-S, Silberstein J (1986) Is an atom of copper malleable? J Chem Educ 63:64–66
Bopegedera AMRP (2007) An inquiry-based chemistry laboratory promoting student discovery of gas laws. J Chem Educ 84(3):465–468
Bowen CW, Bunce DM (1997) Testing for conceptual understanding in general chemistry. Chem Educ 2(2):1–17. doi:10.1007/s00897970118a
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 63:179–201
Dori YJ, Hameiri M (2003) Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. J Res Sci Teach 40(3):278–302. doi:10.1002/tea.10077
Gabel D (1998) The complexity of chemistry and its implications for teaching. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer, Great Britain, pp 233–247
Gilbert JK, Boulter CJ (1998) Learning science through models and modeling. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Great Britain, pp 53–66
Gobert J, Horwitz P, Tinker B, Buckley B, Wilensky U, Levy ST, Dede C (2003) Modeling across the curriculum: scaling up modeling using technology. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2003, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July 31–August 2, 2003
Gobert J, O’Dwyer L, Horwitz P, Buckley B, Wilensky U, Levy ST Examining the relationship between students’ epistemologies of models and conceptual learning in three science domains: Biology, Physics, & Chemistry (Easton) (under review)
Horwitz P, Christie M (1999) Hypermodels: embedding curriculum and assessment in computer-based manipulatives. J Educ 181:1–23
Ivanov DT (2007) Experimental verification of Boyle’s law and the ideal gas law. Phys Educ 42(2):193–197. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/42/2/011
Johnstone AH (1993) The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand. J Chem Educ 70:701–705
Kozma RB (2000) The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobson MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, London, pp 11–46
Laugier A, Garai J (2007) Derivation of the ideal gas law. J Chem Educ 84(11):1832
Lee HL, Plass JL, Homer BD (2006) Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. J Educ Psychol 98(4):902–913. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.902
Levy ST, Wilensky U (2006a) Gas laws and beyond: strategies in exploring models of the dynamics of change in the gaseous state. In: Buckley B (Organizer), Gobert J (Presider), Kraicik J (Discussant), “supporting science learning and science education reform with information technologies”. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco
Levy ST, Wilensky U (2006b) Emerging knowledge through an emergent perspective: high-school students’ inquiry, exploration and learning in connected chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San-Francisco, 7–11 April 2006
Levy ST, Wilensky U (2008) Inventing a “Mid-level” to make ends meet: reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cogn Instr 26(1):1–47
Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009) Crossing levels and representations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. J Sci Educ Technol
Levy ST, Novak M, Wilensky U (2006) Connected chemistry curriculum, CC1. Evanston, IL. Center for Connected Learning and Computer Based Modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/curriculum/chemistry/. Download at http://mac.concord.org/downloads
Lin H-S, Cheng H-J (2000) The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. J Chem Educ 77(2):235–238
Liu X (2006) Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: a quasi-experimental study. J Sci Educ Technol 15(1):89–100. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0359-7
Mas CJF, Perez JH (1987) Parallels between adolescents’ conceptions of gases and the history of chemistry. J Chem Educ 64(7):616–618
Nakhleh M (1992) Why some students don’t learn chemistry. J Chem Educ 69(3):191–196
Niaz M, Robinson WR (1992) From ‘Algorithmic mode’ to ‘conceptual gestalt’ in understanding the behavior of gases: an epistemological perspective. Res Sci Technol Educ 10(1):53–64. doi:10.1080/0263514920100105
Noh T, Scharmann LC (1997) Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial representation of matter on students’ conceptions and problem-solving ability. J Res Sci Teach 34(2):199–217. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<199::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-O
Novick S, Nussbaum J (1978) Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: an interview study. Sci Educ 62(3):273–281. doi:10.1002/sce.3730620303
Novick S, Nussbaum J (1981) Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: a cross-age study. Sci Educ 65(2):187–196. doi:10.1002/sce.3730650209
Nussbaum J (1985) The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase. In: Driver R, Guesne E, Tiberghien A (eds) Children’s ideas in science. Open University Press, Philadelphia, pp 124–144
Pallant A, Tinker RF (2004) Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):51–66. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000019638.01800.d0
Russell JW, Kozma RB, Jones T, Wykoff J, Marx N, Davis J (1997) Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic. J Chem Educ 74(3):330–334
Salomon G, Perkins DN, Globerson T (1991) Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educ Res 20(3):2–9
Sanger MJ, Phelps AJ, Fienhold J (2000) Using a computer animation to improve students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. J Chem Educ 77(11):1517–1520
Shavelson RJ, Li M, Ruiz-Primo MA, Ayala CC (2002) Evaluating new approaches to assessing learning. Paper presented at the Keynote Address: Joint Northumbria/EARLI Assessment Conference, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Longhirst Campus, UK
Snir J, Smith CL, Raz G (2003) Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: a software tool for introducing students to the particulate model. Sci Educ 87:794–830. doi:10.1002/sce.10069
Stavy R (1988) Children’s conception of gas. Int J Sci Educ 10(5):552–560. doi:10.1080/0950069880100508
Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected chemistry—incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12(3):285–302. doi:10.1023/A:1025085023936
Treagust D, Chittleborough G, Mamiala T (2002) Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. Int J Sci Educ 24(4):357–368. doi:10.1080/09500690110066485
Treagust DF, Chittleborough G, Mamiala TL (2003) The role of the submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. Int J Sci Educ 25(11):1353–1368. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070306
Westbrook SL, Marek ED (1991) A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. J Res Sci Teach 28:649–660. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280803
Wilensky U (1999a) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
Wilensky U (1999b) GasLab: an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring micro- and macro- views of gases. In: Feurzig W, Roberts N (eds) Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. Springer, New York, pp 151–178
Wilensky U (2001). Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. Paper presented at the Eurologo 2001 Conference, Linz, Austria
Wilensky U (2003) Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab modeling toolkit. Int J Comput Math Learn 8(1):1–41. doi:10.1023/A:1025651502936 (special issue on agent-based modeling)
Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19. doi:10.1023/A:1009421303064
Wilensky U, Hazzard E, Froemke R (1999) GasLab—an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring statistical mechanics. Paper presented at the Seventh European Logo Conference (EUROLOGO ‘99), Sofia, Bulgaria
Acknowledgments
We thank Michael Novak, the lead curriculum developer who collaborated with us in forming the curriculum, Phillip Cook who taught several classes with early research versions, Reuven Lerner and Spiro Maroulis, who contributed to the data collection and analyses, Paulo Blikstein and Pratim Sengupta, who participated in enacting the curriculum and in data collection, members of the Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling who have supported us in many ways, and our collaborators at Concord Consortium, Barbara Buckley, Janice Gobert, Paul Horwitz and Ed Hazzard and members of the MAC project team. Modeling Across the Curriculum was funded by the Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI), a jointly supported project of the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Education and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, under NSF Grant No. REC-0115699. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. This paper continues and expands the authors’ AERA 2006 paper titled Students’ foraging through the complexities of the particulate world in the Connected Chemistry curriculum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levy, S.T., Wilensky, U. Students’ Learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) Curriculum: Navigating the Complexities of the Particulate World. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 243–254 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9145-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9145-7